If I were a PM who had delivered a seminal speech on the global rupture and the need for new relations with the world, I probably wouldn’t send hundreds of layoff notices to my foreign affairs department the next day

www.hilltimes.com/story/2026/0...

It's not sufficient to have a hypothetical platform from which to create change; there needs to be an articulable pathway by which you propose positive change will occur.

My proposal has a clear pathway: let a couple right-wing Dems lose so you can finally elect Dems who work for you. What's yours?

You do it one or two times and the next Democrat will learn their lesson and you'll finally be able to move the Overton window back where it belongs and put an end to this ratchet effect that's paralyzed progressive politics as of late.

At the end of the day does it really matter if you get what far-right extremists are calling for right away or 2-4 years later at the hands of Democrats?

What I'm proposing is not to simply cede power to them. This false despair is exactly what right-wing Democrats count on to keep their power.

The problem is that there's no end to it. It's not 'vote a bad Democrat into office and we'll just be slightly more conservative'. It's an endless spiral and one marginalized minorities have to pay for with their lives.

I've put myself out in the public sphere under my actual identity to fight for marginalized people with full knowledge and understanding of the risks I face for doing so, including doxxing, threats and harassment arising as a result of putting myself in the line-of-fire of far-right extremism.

It helps because candidates are naturally inclined to do what they want and deviate from it to the least extent possible so long as they can still get elected.

If you make it clear candidates won't get elected until they stop attacking minorities, they will stop attacking minorities.

Candidates can appeal to different people, but if you're a progressive and they just keep wanting your vote while actively working against your interests, is it really worth voting for them? Again it's not just about keeping the specific extremist out of power, it's about the precedent.

Newsom is still going to be an unmitigated existential disaster for the people he attacks, and if history teaches us anything, that list will only continue to grow.

Because if this ratchet effect is not reigned in, all it will do is continue pushing politics towards far-right extremism with no backstop. Republicans will continue getting more extreme and they will open up bigger spaces for right-wing Democrats to occupy while remaining marginally better.

Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. Letting open fascists win one or two elections just to set the precedent that closeted fascists cannot count on reluctant voters can in some cases be worth it. It's similar to your proposed sacrifice with taking Newsom but I feel has better long-term prospects.

I understand, but a reluctant vote is still a vote, and people like Gavin Newsom count on getting reluctant votes by being marginally better (or worse, being merely *perceived* as marginally better) than their opponent.

What other incentive structure do you propose to keep people intent on throwing trans and homeless people not to mention everyone else under the bus out of office instead of electing them under the guise of defending against fascism?

In Ontario, the big ones are Meridian, Desjardins and Alterna.

I suggest looking into credit unions! They're owned collectively by members and work basically the same as a bank. They typically have much more positive involvement in local communities than banks do.

He's referring to Meta as an example of a platform that bans Canadian news organizations.